Still think you think straight even AFTER the philosophical health check, think again

[jh322]

snip

Ok, I see now that what you are doing is trolling, so I'm declaring rule 14.

Will give you a nice tip, though - look up the term "tax haven". Then, learn about economics and what people get back from taxation. Then go and live on a fucking tiny spit of an island with no infrastructure but no tax. See if you're any happier. Taxation does not equal theft, and you, sir, are a moron. Also a troll.

 

[Baneat]

snip

Ok, I see now that what you are doing is trolling, so I'm declaring rule 14.

Will give you a nice tip, though - look up the term "tax haven". Then, learn about economics and what people get back from taxation. Then go and live on a fucking tiny spit of an island with no infrastructure but no tax. See if you're any happier. Taxation does not equal theft, and you, sir, are a moron. Also a troll.

I don't think it's trolling, just bitten off more than he can chew, shouldering the weight of all of ethics and realising that there's inherent contradictions that nobody solved.

 

[jh322]

snip

Ok, I see now that what you are doing is trolling, so I'm declaring rule 14.

Will give you a nice tip, though - look up the term "tax haven". Then, learn about economics and what people get back from taxation. Then go and live on a fucking tiny spit of an island with no infrastructure but no tax. See if you're any happier. Taxation does not equal theft, and you, sir, are a moron. Also a troll.

I don't think it's trolling, just bitten off more than he can chew, shouldering the weight of all of ethics and realising that there's inherent contradictions that nobody solved.

I don't know, suggesting that in within 10 years the British government will be firing on its citizens "for fun" sounds like trolling to me. They've made the mistake of assuming they have better knowledge of ethics than everybody else on the escapist. Not a wise move - demographically speaking, we're well educated and intelligent, bound to be someone out there who'll put them in their place.

 

[Baneat]

snip

Ok, I see now that what you are doing is trolling, so I'm declaring rule 14.

Will give you a nice tip, though - look up the term "tax haven". Then, learn about economics and what people get back from taxation. Then go and live on a fucking tiny spit of an island with no infrastructure but no tax. See if you're any happier. Taxation does not equal theft, and you, sir, are a moron. Also a troll.

I don't think it's trolling, just bitten off more than he can chew, shouldering the weight of all of ethics and realising that there's inherent contradictions that nobody solved.

I don't know, suggesting that in within 10 years the British government will be firing on its citizens "for fun" sounds like trolling to me. They've made the mistake of assuming they have better knowledge of ethics than everybody else on the escapist. Not a wise move - demographically speaking, we're well educated and intelligent, bound to be someone out there who'll but them in their place.

Question: Who are "they"?

Again I think it's more tinfoil logic than intentional trolling. Yeah it's an insanely slippery slope, but he's not just saying stuff to aggravate people. The fact is though, his statement's got some validity. It's not that they will shoot people for lulz, it's that they could if they wanted to, and that we'd have little power to stop them. Okay, maybe not the UK government simply because even the po-po are tame with firearms (I visited when I was 7 with a boy-scout type organisation). They have like 4 guys in the whole station who are even permitted to touch them, very few weapons (though amazing quality as a result) and they're strictly held, must be signed out with good reason and signed back in very quickly.

 

[jh322]

snip

Ok, I see now that what you are doing is trolling, so I'm declaring rule 14.

Will give you a nice tip, though - look up the term "tax haven". Then, learn about economics and what people get back from taxation. Then go and live on a fucking tiny spit of an island with no infrastructure but no tax. See if you're any happier. Taxation does not equal theft, and you, sir, are a moron. Also a troll.

I don't think it's trolling, just bitten off more than he can chew, shouldering the weight of all of ethics and realising that there's inherent contradictions that nobody solved.

I don't know, suggesting that in within 10 years the British government will be firing on its citizens "for fun" sounds like trolling to me. They've made the mistake of assuming they have better knowledge of ethics than everybody else on the escapist. Not a wise move - demographically speaking, we're well educated and intelligent, bound to be someone out there who'll but them in their place.

Question: Who are "they"?

Again I think it's more tinfoil logic than intentional trolling. Yeah it's an insanely slippery slope, but he's not just saying stuff to aggravate people. The fact is though, his statement's got some validity. It's not that they will shoot people for lulz, it's that they could if they wanted to, and that we'd have little power to stop them. Okay, maybe not the UK government simply because even the po-po are tame with firearms (I visited when I was 7 with a boy-scout type organisation). They have like 4 guys in the whole station who are even permitted to touch them, very few weapons (though amazing quality as a result) and they're strictly held, must be signed out with good reason and signed back in very quickly.

Sorry, 'they' as in singular, in reference to the OP. Re-reading sounds like I could have meant you also, which I did not. I couldn't be bothered going to his(?) profile to check gender.

OT:Exactly, that's the thing, even the police can't really get their hands on them. Besides, more people in another country (read: USA) having a load of guns doesn't necessarily help them, a few rifles on the pack of a pick-up truck won't help if the army decide they want to play hard ball. Civilians expect their government and army to protect them, and when they don't, we hope that the UN get involved. That's what you pay your taxes for, in part, protection and governance. Yes, I moan about how much tax I pay, but I also am pleased when my girlfriend gets all her diabetes medication free on the NHS, and if I get robbed, I can call the police. If my house gets set on fire, I can call the fire brigade. I am happy to pay for these things. Otherwise, I'd move to fucking Monaco or something.

 

[Kortney]

7. It certainly worked well in Nazi Germany, China, the Soviet Union, Armenia, etc. Gun control may appear to work well now. It may even amount to less deaths at this particular moment. However, I give the UK and Australian cops maybe 10 years before they realize they can do anything they want without consequences, and start murdering women an children in the street for fun.

What?

First of all, what do Australian and British police officers have in common?

Secondly, why would they start killing innocents for fun?

 

[Baneat]

7. It certainly worked well in Nazi Germany, China, the Soviet Union, Armenia, etc. Gun control may appear to work well now. It may even amount to less deaths at this particular moment. However, I give the UK and Australian cops maybe 10 years before they realize they can do anything they want without consequences, and start murdering women an children in the street for fun.

What?

First of all, what do Australian and British police officers have in common?

Secondly, why would they start killing innocents for fun?

They both hate Yahtzee ^^

snip

Ok, I see now that what you are doing is trolling, so I'm declaring rule 14.

Will give you a nice tip, though - look up the term "tax haven". Then, learn about economics and what people get back from taxation. Then go and live on a fucking tiny spit of an island with no infrastructure but no tax. See if you're any happier. Taxation does not equal theft, and you, sir, are a moron. Also a troll.

I don't think it's trolling, just bitten off more than he can chew, shouldering the weight of all of ethics and realising that there's inherent contradictions that nobody solved.

I don't know, suggesting that in within 10 years the British government will be firing on its citizens "for fun" sounds like trolling to me. They've made the mistake of assuming they have better knowledge of ethics than everybody else on the escapist. Not a wise move - demographically speaking, we're well educated and intelligent, bound to be someone out there who'll but them in their place.

Question: Who are "they"?

Again I think it's more tinfoil logic than intentional trolling. Yeah it's an insanely slippery slope, but he's not just saying stuff to aggravate people. The fact is though, his statement's got some validity. It's not that they will shoot people for lulz, it's that they could if they wanted to, and that we'd have little power to stop them. Okay, maybe not the UK government simply because even the po-po are tame with firearms (I visited when I was 7 with a boy-scout type organisation). They have like 4 guys in the whole station who are even permitted to touch them, very few weapons (though amazing quality as a result) and they're strictly held, must be signed out with good reason and signed back in very quickly.

Sorry, 'they' as in singular, in reference to the OP. Re-reading sounds like I could have meant you also, which I did not. I couldn't be bothered going to his(?) profile to check gender.

OT:Exactly, that's the thing, even the police can't really get their hands on them. Besides, more people in another country (read: USA) having a load of guns doesn't necessarily help them, a few rifles on the pack of a pick-up truck won't help if the army decide they want to play hard ball. Civilians expect their government and army to protect them, and when they don't, we hope that the UN get involved. That's what you pay your taxes for, in part, protection and governance. Yes, I moan about how much tax I pay, but I also am pleased when my girlfriend gets all her diabetes medication free on the NHS, and if I get robbed, I can call the police. If my house gets set on fire, I can call the fire brigade. I am happy to pay for these things. Otherwise, I'd move to fucking Monaco or something.

This has really made me think, actually

The US government employs a system of Checks and Balances (Read the constitution for a little clarity)

Basically anything one branch of their government does can be kept in check by another, with a few exceptions.

This is done to stop, say, the president becoming a dictator a la Hitler (Fuck! I said I wouldn't!). It's apt here cause he basically circumnavigated the democratic system simply because they didn't have checks and balances installed.

Anyway, the check imposed on the Army was intended to be the people. in the days of yore, the collective people could revolt, and overpower even the Army simply through numbers, guns and tech.

This check is pretty much gone now, gun control or not. Why? Tanks + technology. if every single US citizen owned an entire small arms armoury, I doubt they would beat the army as they are right now.

Where we could go from here, I'm not sure.

 

[Riptide1]

1. There are cases in which theft is acceptable.

2. We are all human beings so race, gender, profession, and beliefs mean nothing, unless a belief brings harm to the innocent such as someone believes it is OK to kill an innocent child.

3. Some ends will always justify the means, if the end is getting a sandwich then the means of standing up and making it yourself with lawfully obtained material is justified.

4. Agree

5. Not always an unconscious person may not immediately consent to CPR but there is nothing morally unacceptable about saving their life. But if it brings hare to someone undeserving than it is morally unacceptable.

6. Yes the human body is designed to consume meat so eating other animals is just the way it was meant to be.

7. some form, but limited. There are definitely people out there who should not have guns but everyone should not be punished for that.

8. No, but if the un-consenting party knew that the child would solve a major issue like world hunger and did not then agree, that might be somewhat morally acceptable.

9. Disagree

10. Agree.

i got lazy and didn't feel like explaining at the end.

 

[Flying Dagger]

Yay a reference to gun control - obligatory link

On topic, I don't see how you can have a test like this without every question being a case of never or always, otherwise you hit a grey area.

on topic
1. no
2. no
3. yes - but it of course depends on the question of ends and means - if the aim is to get rid of a dictator I approve, if your method of doing so is genocide, I'm going to dissappove.
4. yes
5. no - everyone doing what they want is anarchy.
6. no - the urges I get when I see a lady I'm attracted to is natural, following through on them is not moral.
7. yes - the state is the only legitimate source of violence. all other ownership should be revoked. the sports fanatics can play with BB guns, it's exactly the same thing.
8. yes - if I believed that it would solve world hunger, it's a small price to pay.
9. no - depending on how far along
10. yes

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

1. "Theft, defined as the removal of property by force or threat of force is never morally acceptable."

Disagree

2. "I believe in equal rights in society. No race, gender, profession, or religion should be discriminated against or given special rights or protections."

Agree

3. "The ends justify the means"

Agree

4. "I believe institutions like socialized medicine and public schools should be maintained and improved"

Agree

5. "Non-consenting activity is not morally acceptable"

Agree, as a general rule. Although I would not agree that it is never acceptable

6. "Eating animals is not fundamentally immoral as it is natural behavior"

Partially agree. I think that tortuous factory farming is largely immoral, but not eating humanely killed animals I suppose

7. "I believe that at least some element of gun control (ex. special bullet tax, licensing, restriction of automatic weapons) should be maintained"

agree

8. "Rape could be morally acceptable if it resulted in a super-intelligent child who would cure world hunger."

The end result would be beneficial. The act itself would not have been moral, but as the overall result would be good, I will go with "agree".

9. "I believe abortion is fundamentally the murder of a child"

disagree

10. "Gays should be free to marry just like heterosexual couples"

agree

 

[radioactive lemur]

snip

Ok, I see now that what you are doing is trolling, so I'm declaring rule 14.

Will give you a nice tip, though - look up the term "tax haven". Then, learn about economics and what people get back from taxation. Then go and live on a fucking tiny spit of an island with no infrastructure but no tax. See if you're any happier. Taxation does not equal theft, and you, sir, are a moron. Also a troll.

I don't think it's trolling, just bitten off more than he can chew, shouldering the weight of all of ethics and realising that there's inherent contradictions that nobody solved.

I don't know, suggesting that in within 10 years the British government will be firing on its citizens "for fun" sounds like trolling to me. They've made the mistake of assuming they have better knowledge of ethics than everybody else on the escapist. Not a wise move - demographically speaking, we're well educated and intelligent, bound to be someone out there who'll but them in their place.

Question: Who are "they"?

Again I think it's more tinfoil logic than intentional trolling. Yeah it's an insanely slippery slope, but he's not just saying stuff to aggravate people. The fact is though, his statement's got some validity. It's not that they will shoot people for lulz, it's that they could if they wanted to, and that we'd have little power to stop them. Okay, maybe not the UK government simply because even the po-po are tame with firearms (I visited when I was 7 with a boy-scout type organisation). They have like 4 guys in the whole station who are even permitted to touch them, very few weapons (though amazing quality as a result) and they're strictly held, must be signed out with good reason and signed back in very quickly.

Sorry, 'they' as in singular, in reference to the OP. Re-reading sounds like I could have meant you also, which I did not. I couldn't be bothered going to his(?) profile to check gender.

OT:Exactly, that's the thing, even the police can't really get their hands on them. Besides, more people in another country (read: USA) having a load of guns doesn't necessarily help them, a few rifles on the pack of a pick-up truck won't help if the army decide they want to play hard ball. Civilians expect their government and army to protect them, and when they don't, we hope that the UN get involved. That's what you pay your taxes for, in part, protection and governance. Yes, I moan about how much tax I pay, but I also am pleased when my girlfriend gets all her diabetes medication free on the NHS, and if I get robbed, I can call the police. If my house gets set on fire, I can call the fire brigade. I am happy to pay for these things. Otherwise, I'd move to fucking Monaco or something.

A bunch of rednecks in a pickup probably wouldn't do great against trained soldiers, but civilian gun owners in the U.S. outnumber police and military 70 to 1, and that's just legal guns that are accounted for. With that kind of firepower, Americans would never need to actually use them to defend themselves against their own police or army because the police/army wouldn't dare do something to piss all of society at once. If shit really did hit the fan, it's entirely possible the police (assuming they all stand together) would eventually win even in the U.S., but the losses they'd take in a war with the populace would be unacceptable to them, so they'd never do it in the first place. Also the cops and soldiers who do have a working sense of morality could easily defect and fight for good instead, which isn't really an option for cops in a place like China. Long story short, genocide is not even an option in the U.S. In Canada, UK and Australia however, it's a completely feasible option that could be accomplished with few losses, and no recourse for police/military who do not wish to partake in it.